In 2008 progressives and leftists swarmed to support Obama even though his program came down to platitudes like “Change.” After Obama became president and ignored the opportunity to lead the country in a new direction, leftists insisted that it was necessary to continue to support him. Now leftists are exploding with joy at Romney’s supposed mistake in choosing the easily attacked Ryan as his running mate. Perhaps leftists might reconsider their own credibility as political analysts in evaluating the Republican strategy.

Let us begin with the obvious. Obama cannot run on his record, since it is a record of failure. Therefore, he was always going to run a scare campaign, explaining how bad the Republicans are. In choosing Ryan, Romney has not made this easier for Obama — it was always easy. Rather, he showed that he is not afraid of Obama’s scare tactics, and of the Democrat’s ad hominem attacks on him — rich, unfeeling, out of touch, and all the rest.

Also obvious is that the choice allows Romney to unify his party and fire up his base. Progressives continue to regard Obama as a political genius, even as they reject his programs. But the first rule of American politics is to be true to your base before reaching out. Obama treated his base with contempt, even as he woos them now. But we all know that while we gave money, time, and energy in 2008, few of us are going to do that again, even if we vote for Obama. By contrast, Romney now has a unified base.

But the most important reason that Romney’s choice is inspired is much larger than either of these. The U.S. is in a long-term crisis, generally termed “decline.” This was obvious during the Bush Presidency, even before the economic downturn that began in 2007. It was the sense of crisis that created the Obama wave. Obama, however, has never recognized and spoke to the nature of this crisis. On the contrary, from the time of his election on he has repeated the same words that Hoover repeated after the Great Depression unfolded in 1929: “we will recover.” His policy now is “stay the course,” “Let us finish what we have begun.” That is a losing position. Romney, by contrast, in choosing Ryan, can say that he is boldly and directly addressing the crisis and has a way out, namely the budget. This is powerful; it speaks to the deeply held optimism termed “American exceptionalism.” It may well not be enough to win, but that it was an inspired move cannot be denied.

Eli Zaretsky is the author of Why America Needs a Left: An Historical Argument

19 Responses to “Why Romney’s Choice of Ryan was an Inspired One for the Right”

American exceptionalism – lead Custer all the way to hid defeat – It is one thing to claim American exceptionalism – based on – killing of women and children – But when faced with a equal force of men – that American exceptionalism – Shown what it really was – So it is basically a delusion – Creats a a situtation – of singing all the way to thje slaughter – Thus voting for – even if their own taxes are raised – and their social security is stolen to give to the rich multi-national companys – tax breaks and corporate-welfare and their jobs are shipped someplace else with cheap slave labor – Or tjhe slave labor is brougjht in – while their told they are too lazy – but they have American exceptionalism – Show them a picture – then tell them it;’s the truth – Wamo – thjey will deliver blankets for you.

Zaretsky is correct that the overwhelming members of the “left”, the real left not left liberals which are more or less moderate Republicans, supported in all sorts of ways Obama’s election in 2008. He also correctly defines Obama’s presidency from the point of view of that left as a failed (he could have even claimed criminal) presidency. It’s even a failed presidency from a principled liberal point of view with regard to civil liberties and the defense of Social Security and Medicare. Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between what Obama at his worst stands for and the Romney, Ryan ticket, which Zaretsky appears to acknowledge when he states that the left will probably vote for Obama in 2012. I do think, however, that Zaretsky overstates the case when he claims that Ryan’s candidacy will unite the Republican base. His budget proposal and Romney’s are so overwhelmingly favorable to the top one percent of tax payers and so detrimental to the rest of us that when that point is reiterated in political ads and the upcoming debates a significant minority of voters in the hard-line “base” of the Republican party will think twice about cutting their own throats by voting for such an oligarchical agenda, and that is even more likely to apply to less hardcore Republican and independent voters. Add in the differences between the candidates regarding health care, however inadequate Obama’s proposals have been, and support for women’s rights, and you have other powerful arguments undermining the Republican bid for the presidency. As for the notion that Obama seems oblivious to the “crisis” and projects an optimistic scenario of recovery versus the Romney/Ryan embrace of the failed deregulation economic policies of the past coupled with a radical redistribution of wealth and income in favor of the rich as a solution to the “crisis”, that contrast seems highly dubious to work in favor the political Neanderthals. Zaretsky is of course right when he makes the more basic point that neither Obama nor Romney/Ryan have been willing to honestly address the real reasons for the decline of American capitalism and its imperialist offspring. No surprise there.

A very interesting and thoughtful response from an old friend. My main point in all of these blogs is not to influence votes. Of course, an Obama victory is preferable. My main point is to generate more consciousness concerning the need for an independent, radical left. A very important part of being independent is being independent of the obama machine right now. THe left thought in 2008 it could “push” Obama. What could have saved his Presidency would have been an independent left to which he would have had to answer. As it was, he could go as far right as he wanted without paying a price. We cant let that continue, which doesnt mean we should support republicans.

I agree with Eli that whether or not someone on the left votes for Obama–which I believe they should do only in states that are electorally up for grabs–everyone on the left should speak with a voice distinct from that of the Obama campaign. In other words, I advocate under the present circumstances critical support for Obama and not a “plague on both your houses” approach. Every legitimate criticism of Obama should be accompanied by criticism of Romney/Ryan, while emphasizing the qualitative difference on most issues of significance between the two contending parties. Most importantly, what the left stands for in contrast to Obama and Romney/Ryan should be incorporated in the ensuing debate and struggle for power. This should be done by utilizing all forms of political organizing, from electoral work to direct action campaigns. The idea is to insure an Obama victory while building an independent left that has both the consciousness and political strength to push Obama to the left. But besides being a pressure group, the left has to become a dynamic force in its own right. It remains to be seen whether the present decentralized and somewhat atomized left can generate the will, leadership and organizational sophistication to pull this off on a national level. In contrast to Eli, I do believe for the reasons previously stated, that the announcement of Ryan’s candidacy provides the left with a greater opportunity than it had before to successfully implement this strategy.

I agree with Eli here. Putting Ryan on the ticket drags the dialogue to the right. This has been the ongoing trend for the last 50 years – a bit more to the right, then a bit more, then a bit more after that. These people think long-term.

to be honest, it saddens me a bit to see someone on tikkun praising the theory of “american exceptionalism” as you seem to be doing.

“american exceptionalism”, as it is typically practiced today, is an arrogant, condescending, jingoistic patriotism that covers its ears and yells “la la la i can’t hear you” in the face of any critique of american policy or actions.

those who invoke “american exceptionalism” are typically politicians on the right who believe that compassion is weakness and government has little or no responsibility for helping the needy… as though a country can truly be “exceptional” when millions of its citizens live below the poverty line and one in seven families has trouble putting food on the table. what’s exceptional about that?

to me, what would make america truly exceptional would be to make this a country where no one goes hungry, where no one goes without medical care because they can’t get insurance, where people are more important than profits, where randian selfishness is not a virtue.

the romney/ryan vision for america is truly chilling, and i certainly hope that the average tikkun reader doesn’t believe that what they envision would be in any way exceptional. their policies are not “bold” or “inspired”, they are cruel and heartless.

How does one enact anything that will help the country when the main goal of the opposition party is to make the president a one-termer? Imagine….not help the people in this time of great economic need but to make him a one-termer. To that end they have filibustered virtually everything this president wanted. I believe the filibusters are up to about 300. They even filibustered ending tax breaks for companies that outsource American jobs! And they call themselves patriots. Remember the debt ceiling fiasco? Extension of unemployment benefits? Attacks on Planned Parenthood? Endless debates about birth control and abortions?
Not making excuses. I know Obama has taken some positions that he did not have to take but as Thomas Mann & Norman Ornstein (Washington Post) noted: “…we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party. The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
When one party moves this far to the extreme, how can policies be enacted to help us?

Okay, Eli, let’s give some credit: Obama has taken over student loans from banks, raised cafe standards to 35 MPG, lowered standards for certain air pollutants, health bill (yes, I wanted a public option too) that gets 30 million more insured and some other good things in it, signed a stimulus bill which DID help (despite Republicans’ repeated assertion that it didn’t as they applied for it in their home state), lowered limits for mercury and lead in air/water, opened up stem cell research, signed Lilly Ledbetter equal pay act, enacted clash for clunkers, stimulated the auto industry (some say he saved it), some reforms to the banking and financial sectors (not enough but go ask the Republicans to do more), tax cuts for small businesses and middle class families, more comprehensive health care for veterans, raised minimum wage to $7.25, supported controversial TARP bill which probably saved pensions, investments, and I know there’s more…..just can’t think of it.

These are all interesting and worthwhile comments. On American exceptionalism there are two different meanings of the term “exceptional.” The first meaning is that the United States is sui generis: it does not conform to the usual pattern of national development, especially because it had no feudalism. This was the meaning that Alexis De Tocqueville intended when he first coined the phrase. The second meaning is that America is “exceptional” in the sense of superior, providing an example for others, the famous “city upon a hill.” I reject this version of exceptionalism, but I do believe we have to speak to the country’s unique history.

On the idea that I live in Cuckooland because I think another President could have done MUCH better than Obama, I really think we need to look at American history. Obama and his supporters would have you believe that this is the first time that an opposition tried to limit a progressive President to one term. All the Presidents that have moved the country forward– such as Lincoln, Jefferson, both Roosevelts, etc have been faced with intense right wing opposition.

The important point is to look at the nature of the crisis. Did Obama lead the country away from the disastrous Bush policies– the “war on terror” and handing the government to the banks– or has he continued them? Has he legitimized the Republican idea that we need to cut government spending, or has he challenged it? Has he given the country a sense of the magnitude of the crisis and the need for a new direction or has he called for “pragmatism.” Just look at his pathetic ads against Romney, one ad hominem attack after another. This is leadership?

Thank you so much, Eli, for being clear sighted about Obama’s abysmal record as President. It’s refreshing to see someone who, while not a GOP supporter, can offer up a legitimate critique on Obama without bias or histrionics. As a Canadian following the presidential race and media coverage, I sincerely wish the rest of the country can manage to do just as well because of what’s on the line with the outcome of this election.

In the 2008 election I voted against the Republican candidate by voting for Obama. I am going to have to do it again in 2012. I do not believe that Obama has been an inspiring president — I believe that he has taken what he thought he could get — he has nibbled around the margins – he has taken small steps. Maybe I am let down because of all the hype when he was elected — or maybe because of the hope that I had that things would be better after the 8 dismal years under his predecessor. Maybe it has been the prevarication when he should have stood his ground, the measured voice when he should have been pounding on the pulpit, in short when he failed to lead.
Ah, but I still believe in progress. Maybe.

Zaretsky’s comments seem to fall in the category of ultra-leftism. Please name the last president before Obama who was better than Obama. Seriously. Were Romney/Ryan to win, I would like a follow-up report by Zaretsky a year later. I fear it would be dismal. American exceptionalism boils down to being a settler state based on race. And to quote Fidel Castro, “Those who live by illusions, will die of disillusionment.”

First of all, thank you Sarah. I had a junior colleague at the New School who was Canadian. A brilliant woman, she desperately wanted to return to Canada.The reason: everyone felt secure about heath care and education and she knew what a difference that made for her, her family and the society.

As to Terence: I dont advocate voting for Romney/Ryan. I advocate voting for Obama in swing states and voting green in sure, Democratic States. As for evaluating his record– the blown opportunity of 2008, when not just the country but the world looked to him for a new direction will be what historians will note.

Eli, I can’t argue with your assessment but, based on what Obama has done so far, I don’t believe historians will rate him a “failure” (up to this point, at least). He has not lived up to the expectations of progressives but he is not a failure, in my opinion. You do recognize that far right conservatives, who just about own the media, constantly pound in our heads that he’s not just a failure, he’s not even an American! He’s not even “one of us,” according to them. No one seems to praise anything he does and he has done some things that were positive and he did it despite all those corporate Blue Dog Dems that didn’t make his life any easier, either. Remember Ben Nelson? Blanche Lincoln? The Democratic Party has a corporate wing. The Republicans are 100% corporate owned and with Citizens United, it gets worse.
Nothing can be taken for granted in the next election, even those “safe” states. We have voter ID requirements now in some states that will disenfranchise millions of voters. PA has one of the worst and, although the decision to uphold the voter ID in that state has been made by one Republican judge and that decision is being appealed, I’m not holding my breath that anything will be reversed.
Eli, I believe the Republican Party has been hijacked by far right wing ideologues and for me to vote for them is unthinkable.

Thoughtful piece, Professor. Though my views have changed considerably over the years and we apparently find ourselves on opposite sides of the aisle now, I remember enjoying your classes back at the University of Missouri in the mid to late 80′s. Always appreciated your enthusiasm and sense of humor, as well as your insights. Glad I happened upon this piece!

CLinton missed the opportunity created by the fall of communism in 1989
Bush missed the opportunity created by 9/11 when the whole world said “we are americans.”
Obama missed the opportunity created by the recognition of Bush and Clinton’s missed opportunities in 2008.

Eli: I don’t know to what opportunities you refer. Both Bush & Clinton did what they did because that’s where they wanted to lead the country, IMHO. Bush was determined to go to war, pass tax cuts for the rich and put it on a Chinese credit card. Clinton was determined to pass NAFTA and repeal Glass-Steagall.
To get back to the Romney/Ryan ticket, however….can anyone confirm whether Mitt Romney started Bain Capital (not the firm itself but the private equity offshoot) with money from Central American oligarchs? Seems these wealthy families were involved in the deaths of thousands of El Salvadorans via death squads. (between 1979-1992) There was international condemnation. The reason? There were land reforms in El Salvador which effected the financial interests of these wealthy families, particularly in the coffee industry. The story is that Romney knew about these death squads (denied by these families) but took their money anyway.
If this is true, his investments need to be looked at for potential conflicts of interest between his dealings and the U.S. government, if he should become president.